We hope to see you online soon!
1. On what basis are you assuming that you were not aware of DEC procedures since you have been informed of this by xerxesmc? (see ticket extract bellow)Thank you your Honor.
Questions to Olisaurus:
1. On what basis are you assuming that you were not aware of DEC procedures since you have been informed of this by xerxesmc? (see ticket extract bellow)
2. Basing on server logs provided by staff, why did you advertise the connected players to come to Walmart's plot and sell their stuff? (see logs bellow)
Line 4530: [12:18:37] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 1337 - VentureChat/INFO]: L | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » come c-054
Line 8527: [12:17:30] [Server thread/INFO]: Olisaurus123 issued server command: /msg Vernicia come to c-054 I show you
Line 458774: [18:32:48] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 2797 - VentureChat/INFO]: G | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » Milqy come c-054
Line 409101: [18:29:39] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 2795 - VentureChat/INFO]: G | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » come to c-054, this is where I sold 16k worth of enchantment tables
Line 431168: [18:31:04] [Craft Scheduler Thread - 2789 - VentureChat/INFO]: G | Trainee Doctor Olisaurus123 » AB6A5SI u coming c-054
Very sorry Your Honor, for the wait.My apologize your Honor,
I have other questions for the witness:
- How did you created your company if you were not fully aware of the procedure?
- Why did Xerxes assume « you knew that you could not make a company in game unless it is registered to you on the forum » ?
- Did the persons you called came to the plot? Why didn't you summoned them as witnesses if they could bring opinions on the whole situation?
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Case No.  FCR 13
I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff accuses Defendants of using Walmart chest shops in an unintended way by trespassing to access chest shops, meaning that there is no valid contract for the conducting of the business at hand. Therefore, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated contract law.
2. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' actions regarding the chest shops were a form of market manipulation. The Plaintiff accuses defendants of trying to devalue or destroy Walmart for their personal financial gain.
3. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the intellectual property of Walmart, by trying to form a company also named Walmart with similar branding.
4. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' usage of chest shops constitute fraud. Plaintiff claims that the usage of chest shops was dishonest and intended to forcibly obtain the cash assets of Walmart.
II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. Defendant Montilou and Olisaurus123 claims the lack of a No Trespassing sign allows Defendant to legally enter the Walmart plot and thus legally use the chest shops on site, thereby acquitting him of any crime by using the chest shops.
2. Defendant Montilou claims that the creation of Walmart by him was not malicious, only existing for 20 minutes because he did not see Walmart on the Redmont business portal. Defendant also claims that he did not earn any money from the existence of his Walmart.
3. Defendant Montilou claims that since nothing was stolen from chest shops and the defendants asked in global chat about fraud, it can be concluded that they did not have fraudulent intentions in their actions.
4. Defendant Montilou claims that since defendants never invested in the stock of Walmart, they could not stand to gain by any alleged market manipulation.
5. Defendant Olisaurus123 claims that the lack of a cease and desist letter means it is not possible for charges of intellectual property theft to be pressed.
III. THE COURT OPINION
1. In regards to allegations of trespassing and contract law violation, I concur with the plaintiff. The requirement of 2 warnings or a sign applies only to permission to legally initiate PvP against the trespasser. Even if PvP is not legally granted, trespassing can still occur by being in a place without the consent of the owners. Given the presence of a wall around the plot and the fact that the only entrance point was the roof, a reasonable person should conclude that they are not to enter and they are especially not to conduct trade there. As a result of the trespassing by defendants, there is no clear offer for any trade to occur, and thus there is no valid contract for trade.
2. In regards to allegations of market manipulation, I concur with the defendants. Market manipulation is a crime relating to the stock market. Given the failure to prove that defendants won financial benefit from buying/selling Walmart stock and/or rival stock, the defendants cannot be found guilty of market manipulation. Furthermore, there has not been a single instance of a decrease in the price of Walmart stock. Earlier today in fact, the price of Walmart stock was updated with a 31.53% increase, even after accounting for the impact of defendants' actions. The lack of injury to Walmart stock further leads me to side with the defendants on this allegation.
3. In regards to allegations of intellectual property theft, I concur with the defendants. Section 4 of the Intellectual Property Protections Act does require that prior to legal action, a cease and desist letter be sent to the defendant. Plaintiff claims that the DEC provided a cease and desist letter to the defendant Olisaurus123. However, these letters are meant to be sent by the person threatening legal action to the alleged thief. In this case, the DEC sent this "letter" while the person pushing legal action is Walmart, not the DEC. Furthermore, a cease and desist letter should inform the recipient of detailed illegal actions and demand a halt to such actions with threat of legal action. While the DEC did inform him that his actions were illegal, no demand to cease and desist was made and no threat of legal action was made. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not believe a proper cease and desist letter was sent, thereby absolving the defendants of any intellectual property theft crime.
4. In regards to allegations of fraud, I concur with the plaintiff. As outlined in Point 1 of the Court's Opinion, the defendants unlawfully used the chest shops. Therefore, a dishonest and/or illegal scheme has been proven. It is also proven that items of value were successfully obtained, which in this case are cash and essentially seizing Walmart. Therefore, the two-part definition of fraud is satisfied. It can reasonably be said that defendants's actions constitute fraud.
The Federal Court rules in favor of the plaintiff in regards to fraud, committed as a result of the trespassing and contract law violations by the defendants.
The Federal Court rules in favor of the defense in regards to market manipulation and intellectual property theft.
I will grant a modified prayer for relief. I order EACH defendant to pay the following to plaintiff: $16,745.15 for the fraudulently stolen cash, $500 for legal fees, and $200 for emotional damages. Therefore, EACH defendant is to pay in total $17,445.15 to the plaintiff. Since I am declaring the transactions null and void, I also order the plaintiff to return the sold items back to the defendants who sold them.